1 Wednesday, 25 October 2006

2 [Closed session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 5234-5239 redacted. Closed session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 [Open session]

5 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

7 Mr. Stamp.

8 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour, the following two witnesses are

9 witnesses through whom the Prosecution seeks to tender huge, huge batches

10 of documents, primarily post mortem reports, post mortem examination

11 reports. In the normal scheme of things, these might well be documents

12 that would be agreed, but we have been moving so fast, admirably, but we

13 have not been in a position in which we could discuss them in detail with

14 the Defence.

15 The Prosecution, however, would, I think, have a duty at some

16 stage to make this massive material, documents numbering in the thousands,

17 intelligible to the Court. And it is our intention, in due course, to

18 present to the Court an explanatory document, a demonstratory that can

19 link the various bits of pieces and evidence related to persons identified

20 in the schedules which are in various batches of these documents and link

21 them in one document. In other words, the evidence would be more

22 intelligible if there was some system. I intend to introduce to the Court

23 a system, a demonstrated system, where the individual victims of the

24 schedules could be linked to those documents, the individual crime sites

25 which are relevant to the case could be linked to those documents, and the

1 individual -- well, the documents relating to various municipalities

2 insofar as they could be linked. We intend to do so when the -- when we

3 tender the remainder of the evidence, because there would be more, in

4 particular some DNA evidence in respect to these bodies.

5 This is something that was ordered, I think, in the Milosevic

6 case, and I think it was -- it is the appropriate way to go. And we

7 propose to do so because I think there would be some difficulty in going

8 through so much material.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: I didn't get the impression, from reading these

10 statements, that there were ongoing DNA investigations.

11 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour, the DNA investigations were completed

12 in July of this year.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So why do you say, when we tender the remainder of

14 the evidence, there would be more, in particular some DNA evidence in

15 respect of those?

16 MR. STAMP: These witnesses, although they did use the results of

17 the DNA evidence, they did not participate in the DNA examinations. We

18 would need to tender the DNA -- unless it is agreed, we need to tender the

19 DNA evidence through another witness.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: It's difficult to understand why this wasn't done

21 in the pre-trial phase of this case.

22 MR. STAMP: Much of the evidence in respect to the DNA had been

23 ongoing for some time, and there were also problems, which eventually the

24 Court will become aware when we call these witnesses, if we need to call

25 these witnesses, in getting the witness, in physically getting the

1 witness, because of some work-related issues. However, I do concede that

2 in respect to whether or not discussions could be had in respect to these

3 documents, perhaps at least the post mortem examination reports might have

4 been considered for discussion.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: But at this moment, is there any useful purpose to

6 be served by leading these witnesses in court?

7 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. Their statements and the reports

8 they tender explain the procedures that they applied, the methodologies

9 they applied, and the batches of post mortem examination reports have the

10 results of the procedures and methodologies that they applied.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, well, that can all -- I can read that here,

12 but what useful purpose is listening to these witnesses going to serve in

13 relation to what you describe as a massive documentation?

14 MR. STAMP: The witnesses, as you can read, they provide a nexus

15 between the exhumation of the bodies and the post mortem reports and their

16 eventual handover to UNMIK for repatriation, UNMIK being the United

17 Nations Mission in Kosovo.

18 The evidence would have to be heard in the absence of an order --

19 it is my submission there would need to be some evidence authenticating

20 these documents, explaining, at least to a limited degree, how they were

21 created, unless there is an order under Rule 92 bis that they could be

22 received through cross-examination without the witness attending or unless

23 there is agreement, which perhaps is the way to go.

24 But it is true, Your Honour, that, even in speaking with these

25 witnesses, if they are asked anything in any real detail about the

1 material, they would open the documents and look at the documents because

2 there's just so much it's really beyond human memory. So the documents

3 themselves speak -- the documents speak for themselves. But we did need

4 to lay a foundation to tender them.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

6 Mr. O'Sullivan, are you able to assist on the degree that you

7 anticipate these witnesses will be cross-examined?

8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I expect they'll be cross-examined very little,

9 Your Honour, if any.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: The ideal situation, I think, would have been, if

11 there was a summary report in relation to the work done which tied the

12 bodies examined to the indictment, and once that was available, the

13 witnesses were here to be cross-examined to the extent that there was some

14 challenge to that. We note what you say about what you plan, Mr. Stamp,

15 but it's a pity it wasn't planned at a much earlier stage in the case, and

16 then perhaps updated if there was further work ongoing. But it's been

17 known, it would appear, since 2001 that these were sites with --

18 potentially the resting place of the -- final resting place of victims of

19 events in Kosovo.

20 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. Not that it makes much of a

21 difference to the gravamen of what you have just said, but the exhumations

22 continued into 2002, 2003, and the identifications continued on an ongoing

23 basis right up until early this year. But it doesn't --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'll be interested to hear what questions you

25 can ask either of these witnesses that will meaningfully expand upon

1 what's set out in the statements.

2 MR. STAMP: I really will ask some questions to authenticate the

3 documents. There's not much I have to ask them.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: But have they not done that in the statements?

5 MR. STAMP: To some degree, Your Honour. I was hoping that if I

6 do ask them some questions, it might make the batch of documents more

7 easier to --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, all right. Let's hear from the first one.

9 Who is that?

10 MR. STAMP: That's Professor Dusan Dunjic.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

16 tell the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be placed

17 before you.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means. I solemnly

19 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

20 truth.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

22 It might be best if you close the book for the moment until we see

23 if any reference to your own documentation is necessary. We are already

24 in possession of a statement which refers to an enormous amount of

25 documentation which is already here in some form. It's not clear to me

1 exactly what you will be asked about, and therefore I can't give you much

2 guidance since it's up to the parties what questions they're going to ask

3 you. Now, the first person to ask you in this instance will be for the

4 Prosecution, and that is Mr. Stamp.

5 Mr. Stamp.

6 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

7 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Examination by Mr. Stamp:

10 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. Firstly, could you just state your

11 name, tell us your profession, and what your present job occupation is.

12 A. I am Professor Dusan Dunjic, Professor at the Medical School of

13 the University of Belgrade, and I work at the Institute of Forensic

14 Medicine. I'm a full-time professor, teaching forensic medicine.

15 Q. And in 2001, what was your job posting?

16 A. In 2001, in end May/early June, I was invited by the president of

17 the district court in Belgrade, Mrs. Vida Petrovic-Kero, to come together

18 with the district prosecutor in Belgrade, Mr. Terzic, to reach an

19 agreement about going out to the location of Batajnica, which was

20 suspected to contain a mass grave with a large number of bodies in it.

21 As a professor of forensic medicine, at that time head of the

22 institute, I had, under order of the court, to organise the exhumation of

23 those bodies and make sure that all measures are taken to identify them.

24 Q. Thank you. So you were then head of the institute. In respect to

25 the work you did at Batajnica, did you give a statement to the OTP on the

1 9th to the 11th of May?

2 A. 2001?

3 Q. No, no. In respect to the exhumations and work you conducted at

4 Batajnica, did you give a statement to an investigator from the OTP on the

5 11th of May, 2006, this year?

6 A. Yes, yes, I did give a statement. I meant the prosecutor's office

7 in Belgrade and you mean the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.

8 Yes, I did give a statement.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. STAMP: That statement is P2389, Your Honours. I tender it

11 and ask that it be received into evidence.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. In paragraph 3 of that statement, you refer - and you just

15 referred, as well - to an order given by the judge. I would like to show

16 you that order, which is P2396.

17 MR. STAMP: Could that be brought up? Could you scroll down?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all right now.

19 MR. STAMP:

20 Q. As you see, the stamp and the signature of the investigating

21 judge, Goran Cavlina.

22 A. Yes, that is the document that we received at the Institute of

23 Forensic Medicine, ordering the establishment of a team to conduct this

24 work.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, at paragraph 12 of the statement, there

2 is a list of documents, including the one which the witness was just

3 shown. These documents are in e-court as P2395 to P2406. Without going

4 through all of those documents, I propose to tender them, Your Honours.

5 Q. You --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, just before moving on. In relation -- these

7 relate to Batajnica 1, as I understand it.

8 MR. STAMP: 1.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: In relation to Batajnica 2, there is actually a

10 summary report, I think; is that right?

11 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour, there is a summary report in respect

12 to both of them.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Both. And what number is the summary report for

14 Batajnica 1?

15 MR. STAMP: For Batajnica 1, it's P168. I was just coming to

16 that.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: And the numbers you've just given us are 12?

18 MR. STAMP: Yes.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean that there are 12 bodies,

20 apparently?

21 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour. These are 12 documents which are

22 referred to in paragraph 12 of his report.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But is there one for each of 12 bodies, or is

24 it something else?

25 MR. STAMP: No, it's something else. These are individual

1 documents dealing with individual aspects of the exhumations. The

2 forensic reports, the batch of forensic reports, is Exhibit P2407.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: So I -- yes, I see -- my confusion -- sorry,

4 Mr. Stamp, it's my fault, but there are two paragraph 12s in your report

5 and I'm looking at the second one when I should have been looking -- in

6 the statement, when I should have been looking at the first one. And now

7 I follow it more clearly. But it would help if we confined ourselves to

8 numbering each paragraph consecutively.

9 MR. STAMP: That had escaped my attention. Thank you very much,

10 Your Honour. Of course I was referring to the first 12.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I now follow it. Thank you.

12 MR. STAMP:

13 Q. Professor, I'm going to try to take you quickly through some of

14 the documents that are related to your report.

15 MR. STAMP: Could we look at P159. These are some photographs.

16 Q. What does this photograph depict?

17 A. This photograph has a two-fold meaning. First of all, this is the

18 location Batajnica 1, where we see two tents; one in the right-hand corner

19 covering the pit, and the other tent on the left-hand side of the picture

20 is the tent in which we conducted examinations of the bodies removed from

21 the pit. On the right-hand side is a truck which, in fact, was a water

22 tank, which provided us with running water, and the white truck is a

23 refrigerator truck where we kept the bodies after they were examined and

24 autopsied. And that refrigerator truck was there the whole time while we

25 were working at Batajnica. That is to explain the photograph itself.

1 But another thing that I should point out here is this water you

2 can see. It was a very rainy period in early June when we had to suspend

3 the exhumations for a while, for a short while.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. STAMP: Could we flip to the last photograph in that series on

6 P159. May I just indicate, Your Honours, there is an index of these

7 photographs, which is P158. This exhibit is P159. The index indicates

8 that this is a view of the exhumation site following the initial ground

9 clearance.

10 Q. Can you describe, very briefly, what's in this photograph.

11 A. On this photograph that was taken from the north-eastern side,

12 that is, looking from the tent that covers the whole pit, we see the area

13 where the bodies were located, the bodies we found later. This photograph

14 shows the rain-water from the rainfalls that came earlier and that covered

15 our first excavations in the area. After this water was removed, we found

16 bodies in the central part of this pit, the bodies that we can see on

17 other photos.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. STAMP: Could we have up P168. Your Honours, at paragraph 4

20 of the statement, the witness refers to his report on the exhumation, his

21 overview report of the exhumation, and that is a document which has

22 been brought.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's page 9 of this report,

24 a working diary where we would describe the body parts that we found, in

25 which area we found them, et cetera.

1 MR. STAMP:

2 Q. Yes, I'd just like to take you to one or two parts of the report,

3 just to identify it.

4 MR. STAMP: First, could we look at the last page of the report?

5 It has just been pointed out to me that the document is -- there is an

6 error in the ERN ending, in the numbering. So it is the third page on

7 e-court. Actually, the last page of the report is the third page in

8 e-court.

9 Q. That is where you -- that is your signature?

10 A. Yes, yes. That's my signature of the 5th of July, 2001.

11 Q. You detail in the reports -- in the report the procedure you

12 applied in exhuming these bodies and conducting the post mortem

13 examination reports. So I will just take you to one or two sections of

14 it.

15 MR. STAMP: In the English version, at page 2. Again, because of

16 the difficulty with the B/C/S version in e-court, I wonder if he could be

17 handed a hard copy of this document, Your Honour.

18 Q. In the middle of page 2 you describe the labelling of the bodies,

19 the labelling of the bodies and body parts and items and effects found in

20 the excavation.

21 "It was agreed that all body parts and bodies would be labelled BA

22 and given a number from 1 upward. Additionally, all loose clothing was

23 given the label 'BASG' and a number, and loose items found were given the

24 label 'BAP' and a number."

25 Now, can I just ask you one thing about the numbering. What would

1 be done with artefacts that were found, including that was on a body?

2 A. The agreement we had was as follows: That all objects found on

3 the body or with the body, together with the clothing, should be recorded

4 in the autopsy referring to that body and given a certain number; however,

5 there were objects that fell outside that category, although they were

6 found in the same location, and they would be given -- they would be given

7 an indication, a mark, "PA," for object. The objects found in pockets or

8 on the body of the victim would be given the same reference number as the

9 victim.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 A. All valuables, such as jewellery and money, were later handed over

12 to the investigating judge for the safe-keeping of the court, and they

13 were later used for identification.

14 Q. Thank you. So personal items and effects found on the body, the

15 clothing on the body, would be given the same number as the body?

16 A. Let me just add. In addition to this description given in the

17 autopsy report, we photographed the objects and the photographs were given

18 the same number.

19 Q. Very well.

20 MR. STAMP: As I indicated, P2407 is the batch, huge batch, of

21 exhumation reports. Because of difficulties in uploading -- not in

22 uploading but in referring to various documents within the batch, we have

23 taken some of them out -- not taken some of them out. We have reproduced

24 some of them with separate exhibit numbers, Your Honours, so that -- for

25 ease of reference. And these are P169 to 188. These are individual

1 reports for some of the victims who were later identified by DNA

2 exhibits. I'd quickly like to just have a look at -- I don't intend to go

3 through all of them, just one of them --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you do that, are these exhibits which are in

5 addition to the ones referred to in the written statement?

6 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: So where do I find 2407 --

8 MR. STAMP: I'm sorry.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- in the written statement?

10 MR. STAMP: I'm very sorry, Your Honour. That is the second

11 paragraph 12.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So that's 2407?

13 MR. STAMP: Yes.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. And the photographs P159, where do we

15 find them in the statement?

16 MR. STAMP: P159, photos of examined -- I do not believe that they

17 are specifically referred to in the --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: And the same would be the case with the index,

19 P158?

20 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thanks.

22 Professor, is it possible to say the number of persons of whom

23 parts were found in Batajnica 1?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the report that we made and that

25 was officially published, signed by the president of the district court in

1 Belgrade, we said that at the Batajnica 1 location at least 36 human

2 corpses were found of both genders and of different age groups. We also

3 indicated that out of those 36, nine were established to be younger than

4 seven. One child's corpse had the intrauterine age of eight months.

5 Other remains, such as individual bones, were also examined and

6 processed and also marked with the same "BA" reference, together with the

7 number, but those individual bones were impossible to fit

8 anthropologically with the whole corpses that we had. That's why we said

9 we had found at least 36 bodies. And we can only assume that among the

10 other remains there was a body of maybe another person.

11 Out of the whole bodies, the bodies -- or the remains that we

12 could establish to belong to one person, we took bone samples for future

13 DNA analysis. However, we also took bone samples for DNA analysis from

14 the remains that we did not integrate with whole corpses, and that's how

15 we were able to establish the identities of the persons. And, indeed, we

16 reached the number of at least 36 in Batajnica 1.

17 I'm sorry. When we received DNA reports for Batajnica 1, it

18 turned out that three different bone samples - one arm, one leg, another

19 leg - according to the DNA analysis, belonged to one person. And then we

20 were able to put together one whole body, or most of it, that belongs to

21 one person and join it with some other separate bones found in the same

22 location marked with different numbers.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Now, Mr. Stamp, is that report by the president of the district

25 court already in process?

1 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour. No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not. Is it likely to come or is it a

3 separate -- a matter that we are not to be concerned with?

4 MR. STAMP: A matter that I don't think you need to be concerned

5 with.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

7 MR. STAMP: That aspect in respect to the bodies and the DNA

8 analysis we expect to be dealt with by the persons who dealt with the

9 taking of the DNA samples.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 MR. STAMP: And may I just indicate, without going through those

12 documents, that in those -- among the batch of 12 documents referred to in

13 the first paragraph 12 of this statement, there is P2402, which is a chart

14 of the examination of body parts, loose body parts; and P2403, which is a

15 chart of the examination -- in respect to the examination of the 36 body

16 parts which he just mentioned. I would have asked him about that, but

17 since he referred to that, I don't think there's any need to open those

18 exhibits and explain what's in them.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 MR. STAMP: I was indicating, Your Honour, P1691, in it are

21 samples, just samples, of some forensic reports which are in the batch

22 P2407, and these are some of those people who were later identified by

23 DNA. I just want to have a look at one of them and ask him three

24 questions about it.

25 Could we look at P182 as a sample from the sample. Could we

1 quickly go to the last page -- or could we scroll page by page to the last

2 page. There are only four pages. Okay.

3 Q. You see at the bottom of -- well, firstly, is that the standard

4 format of your post mortem examination reports for the remains that you

5 examined? And do you see there on the last page your signature and the

6 signature of your colleagues for that report?

7 A. Yes. It's a post mortem report that contains all the relevant

8 data established on the spot through exhumation, autopsy, and

9 anthropological examination of individual bones. After the autopsy

10 findings, a conclusion is given at the end, and below the conclusion all

11 members of the commission involved in this case put their signatures, the

12 whole team. The first signature below the words "Commission of Forensic

13 Medical Doctors" is my signature, and the other signatures are those of my

14 associates.

15 Q. While we're on that page, if you have a look at conclusion number

16 3, Professor, I wish to ask you about it because it appears in many of

17 these reports -- sorry, conclusion -- yes, number 3, firstly.

18 The autopsy reveals that certain parts of the body had been

19 exposed to high temperatures, like fire. Was this a rare observation, or

20 did most of the bodies indicate that there had been an attempt to burn

21 them?

22 MR. ACKERMAN: Excuse me, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. There is an objection to this

24 question.

25 Mr. Ackerman.

1 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I think the last part of that question, "Was

2 this a rare observation, or did most of the bodies indicate that there had

3 been an attempt to burn them" goes way beyond anything contained in that

4 report and is leading and argumentative on the part of the Prosecution.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

6 MR. STAMP: I'm not sure if I agree with my friend, but I'll

7 rephrase the question.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's not what the conclusion says. You're

9 way beyond what's already there, so I think you better start that again.

10 MR. STAMP: Very well.

11 Q. You say here, Professor, that the autopsy reveals that certain

12 parts of the body had been exposed to high temperature, fire. What did

13 that indicate to you?

14 A. Should I provide an answer as a witness or as an expert? As a

15 witness, this would mean that by carrying out autopsies, the presence of

16 high temperature, that is fire, was established and its traces on the

17 bones. As to how that came about and under what circumstances and at what

18 time, well, that part I need to answer as an expert and I do believe that

19 I'm here as a witness.

20 Q. Could you answer the question as an expert, based on your

21 knowledge?

22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I object, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan.

24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I mean, this was dealt with last May at a 65 ter

25 where we requested whether these people -- whether this witness and the

1 other one were testifying as fact witnesses or as experts, and it was

2 clearly determined that they were fact. There's been no expert report and

3 they were not presented to us as expert witnesses.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, there's no report by the witness, is

5 there?

6 MR. STAMP: Well, no report filed under Rule 94.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: No, but any report under any rule saying what his

8 conclusions are about what happened to cause the damage that you're now

9 referring to.

10 MR. STAMP: No, no, there is no such report. Very well.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in these circumstances, we will consider the

12 position. Just give us a moment.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Because this issue was specifically addressed in

15 the pre-trial stage, we do not consider the question that's just been

16 asked to be admissible. However, there can be grey areas in relation to

17 witnesses such as this, who are clearly experts on any view of matters

18 and, even in dealing with issues of fact, bring to bear inevitably the

19 expertise of learning and experience. So we're not saying that questions

20 of this nature would always be inadmissible to a witness who doesn't come

21 clearly labelled as an expert witness in advance. But where the matter's

22 been addressed specifically in the pre-trial stage, there does seem, to

23 us, to be force in the objection and, therefore, we exclude expert -- at

24 least we find the question asked inadmissible.

25 I think, Mr. Stamp, that this chapter started as an attempt to

1 find out how widespread the fire damage was, and that's obviously a matter

2 that the witness can deal with, but there must be certain limitations in

3 the circumstances.

4 MR. STAMP:

5 Q. Based on your observations of these remains, were many of them or

6 just a few of them indicating signs that they had been burnt, from what

7 you saw?

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, Mr. Fila.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the same question

10 but in different words.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: No, the way it's -- the way it's put may not be

12 ideal, but all this question relates to is whether there were signs of

13 damage by fire, not how that fire may have been caused, which is the area

14 that has been excluded. So the question is confined --

15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That is not what we received in

16 interpretation.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let me put the question specifically to the

18 witness.

19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Otherwise, this is the best expert we

20 have in Belgrade.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, the question you are being asked is:

22 How widespread were your findings of damage by fire on the bodies examined

23 from Batajnica 1?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be able to provide a specific

25 answer to this specific question, I would have to go through each and

1 every report from Batajnica 1. This particular case, Batajnica 20 --

2 well, I don't know the exact number. Could we please go back to page 1.

3 22. In this report, in this autopsy finding, we have a detailed

4 description of "the parts of bones and skeleton suffered damage from high

5 temperature." And this applies to each and every case for which we have

6 autopsy reports and findings for.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, the material's all there.

8 MR. STAMP: Yes.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But it doesn't look as though exploring it in court

10 is the most efficient way of dealing with it.

11 MR. STAMP: No, no. I'm trying to avoid having to go through all

12 these documents. We are on P182. Is that before the witness?

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, that is the document which is presently before

14 him.

15 MR. STAMP: Excuse me. Could we go back to that last page of the

16 document.

17 Your Honour, with your leave, may I move on from that document,

18 because it does not indicate what my notes have.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well, Mr. Stamp.

20 MR. STAMP: I would like P139. And while it comes up, P139 to 156

21 are samples from the exhumation reports involving photos and indices for

22 these photos of the human remains as well as personal effects that were

23 recovered. Could we have a look at page 9 of this document.

24 Q. Is this an example of the identification documents that were found

25 in clothing on some of these bodies and that were recorded -- photographed

1 and recorded in your examination -- sorry, in your post mortem examination

2 reports?

3 A. Yes. This is a personal document, or rather, this is a photograph

4 of this person's ID which had been found on the site.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. STAMP: Just for the record, this document refers to Afrim

7 Berisha.

8 Q. Lastly, in respect to Batajnica 1, Professor, could we have a look

9 at P167.

10 MR. STAMP: Very well. P167, Your Honour, are a set of

11 photographs of the grave-site after it had been exhumed -- after it had

12 been excavated, I'm sorry, and P166 is an index of those photographs.

13 Is -- very well --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a problem, Riaz, about this?

15 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at the last -- on the

16 next-to-last photographs.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: That looks like the index rather than the

18 photograph.

19 MR. STAMP: Yes, this is P166, the index; the photographs are

20 P167.

21 Could we look at the previous one.

22 Q. Is that the condition of the excavation -- the pit, the grave,

23 after it had been exhumed and cleaned?

24 A. Yes. This photograph was taken after all the corpses and objects

25 had been taken out. On this photograph you can see four parallel beams.

1 These are sleepers for trams, tram tracks. We have a shorter beam and

2 another one which is perpendicular to the four parallel ones. All of them

3 were carbonised.

4 Q. And they were found at the bottom of the pit?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Among the persons who were members of your examination team, was

7 there an archaeologist by the name of Andrej Starovic, and did he provide

8 a report?

9 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I refer to item 11 in the first

10 paragraph 12 of his statement, and that is P2405.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, first of all, do we have an answer to the

12 question whether there was an archaeologist called Starovic in your team?

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. Can you verbally --

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: And this, you say, is item 11 on the first --

17 MR. STAMP: On the first paragraph 12, and it's P2405.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

19 MR. STAMP: Could that be brought up.

20 Q. Can I just ask you, if I read from it, if, perhaps, you recall

21 what he said about these sleepers. And this is at page 13 of the English

22 version of P2405, and it is in the middle of page K0527227 in the version

23 in B/C/S.

24 A. Yes, this is the report specifying the archaeological findings at

25 Batajnica 1.

1 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I'll forego reading the report; it speaks

2 for itself. It describes the condition of the pit and the sleepers, as

3 they were discovered in the course of the examination.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is described in detail in this

5 document with all the positions relative to the archaeologically important

6 items.

7 MR. STAMP:

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I'm nearly done with this witness. If I

10 may just indicate to the Court another question.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: No.

12 MR. STAMP: If I may just indicate that in respect to Batajnica 2,

13 which is described in this statement at paragraph 13 and thereafter, P2410

14 is a report on the exhumations at Batajnica 2 referred to in paragraph

15 13. P942 contains a full batch of reports, and that's a rather large

16 exhibit, of the exhumations at Batajnica 2.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that the equivalent of 2407 for Batajnica 1?

18 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

19 Q. The procedures that you adopted in respect to the exhumation and

20 the preparation of the post mortem reports in respect to your examination

21 of Batajnica 2, later on in 2001, from July 2001, were they the same or

22 approximately the same as those applied to your examinations of Batajnica

23 1?

24 A. The procedure was the same, identical, but the conditions under

25 which we worked were different. Here, I mean that there was a great

1 number of cases and a great number -- and a -- that it was very hot. This

2 made things more difficult. As regards the autopsy and the

3 anthropological analysis, those were identical. It was also followed by a

4 number of x-rays of bones for easier identification.

5 Q. Thank you. You mentioned earlier in your evidence that you

6 collected bone samples from the bodies that were exhumed and the body

7 parts that were exhumed. Did you also collect bone samples from the body

8 parts in respect to Batajnica 2 as well?

9 A. Yes. All bone samples that could be matched to individual persons

10 were identified or marked in the same way. As for the loose bones, they

11 were also treated forensically and anthropologically, and those loose

12 bones were collected together and disposed of the way it was described

13 here.

14 Q. Now, you mention in -- if I may go very quickly, in paragraph 9 of

15 your statement, that the bone samples in respect to paragraph -- in

16 respect to Batajnica 1 were handed over by you to Dr. Alonso at the

17 National Institute of Toxicology in Madrid. Did you also hand over bone

18 samples in respect to these cases to officials from the International

19 Commission for Missing Persons?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And if you can tell us very briefly, did you participate in the

22 identification of these bodily remains after you received DNA results from

23 both the toxicology institute in Madrid and also the ICMP?

24 A. Yes. At the end, when things were concluded, I participated in

25 the identification procedure. It doesn't boil down solely to the use of

1 the DNA profile from individual bones, but it also encompasses the

2 analysis of the autopsy anthropological findings in the form of the

3 autopsy reports you saw, plus the DNA report, which is actually called a

4 DNA profile for that particular bone, as well as antemortem data collected

5 by certain services from the people down in Kosovo who were relatives to

6 the missing persons.

7 Then we tried to match and compare all the data so as to be able

8 to establish whether a given corpse with our identification number belongs

9 to a certain person, to someone with a first and last name. I

10 participated in that process, together with my colleagues, who worked at

11 the exhumation site and who carried out the autopsies.

12 Q. And when the bodies were identified, they were handed over -- they

13 were repatriated to Kosovo. Is that correct?

14 A. After the identification procedure was completed, this being a

15 complex procedure, we made a list of the people who had been identified.

16 After that, through the centre for coordination which had been established

17 in our country, and together with UNMIK, we had an agreement with these

18 two offices by which those people were to be -- or the corpses were to be

19 repatriated to Kosovo and handed over to their relatives who identified

20 them. The repatriation process was ongoing until recently.

21 Q. "Recently" meaning in the last few months; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 [Prosecution counsel confer]

24 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing

25 further in chief.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 To clarify the position with regard to exhibits, all referred to

3 will be admitted, and, for the avoidance of doubt, the ones which have

4 simply been identified by number and not referred to in any detail, that

5 that applies to are P2395 to 2406, P168, P169 to 188, P139 to 156, P2410,

6 and P942. The others were dealt -- in fact, one or two of those I just

7 mentioned were referred to also clearly, and there are -- the others which

8 were referred to are also admitted.

9 Now, Professor, we need to have a break at this stage to allow

10 interpreters to recover for the next stage of the proceedings. That's

11 normally 20 minutes. We'll resume at 4.15, and meanwhile you'll be shown

12 where to wait by the usher.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

16 [The witness takes the stand]

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, first will be counsel for General

19 Lukic and thereafter we'll follow the indictment.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic. My name is

25 Branko Lukic and, together with my colleagues, I appear today for General

1 Lukic before this Tribunal.

2 First of all, I will follow up on several questions asked of you

3 by my learned friend, Mr. Stamp, and then we will go on to the topic of

4 the lake which hasn't been mentioned but we can find it in your

5 statements.

6 A. Good afternoon.

7 Q. Can you tell us, when did you receive the report from Madrid for

8 the first time regarding the findings, DNA findings, for Batajnica?

9 A. I cannot tell you the exact date, but I think it was after about a

10 month or a month and a half. There is a document where we can find the

11 exact date.

12 Q. Since the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal received this

13 on the 15th of February, 2002, did you maybe receive it at the same time?

14 A. I think it was approximately at the same time.

15 Q. Thank you. The samples were taken to Madrid sometime in November

16 2001. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you know when identification of those bodies was completed?

19 Feel free to use your notes, if they can be of assistance.

20 A. I spoke a moment ago about the process of identification, and I

21 said it was a complex process. Identification did not focus just on

22 location number 1; it also encompassed other locations. And as ICMP

23 reports arrived in my hands, they came in gradually -- just a second. On

24 the 7th of May, 2003, on the 22nd of July, 2003, and then the 15th of

25 October, 2003, and 3rd December 2003, we completed the first repatriations

1 after completed identification. And these reports cover persons

2 identified from both Batajnica 1 and Batajnica 2.

3 Q. Can you see from your notes when the persons from the Berisha

4 family were identified?

5 A. Granit Berisha, father's name Besim, he was included in that first

6 repatriation on the 7th of May. That's one Berisha --

7 Q. That was 2003?

8 A. Yes. Then Genz Berisha, father's name Besim, repatriated at the

9 same time.

10 Q. But it's approximately that interval, or later?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you. The Prosecution showed to you their document number

13 P167, and on page 5 we saw those charred sleepers. Do you know if the

14 conclusion has been made as to whether the sleepers had been brought from

15 Kosovo or they were placed intact together with the bodies in Batajnica

16 and then burned?

17 A. We did not do that sort of analysis.

18 Q. On the 5th of June, 2001, you gave a statement to the Office of

19 the Prosecutor regarding Radonjic Lake, but you were not asked about this

20 at all today. So with your leave, I would like to ask for your assistance

21 to clarify certain matters that the Defence deems important.

22 In addition to being a renowned expert in your field of expertise,

23 you have been a forensic expert for a long time.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You say that in September 1998, Investigating Judge Radovan

1 Gojkovic, from Pec, submitted a request to your institute to engage

2 experts to examine the bodies found in Donje Radiste and Glodjane, Decani

3 municipality. Do you remember that part of your statement?

4 A. Yes, that was in 1998. And at the request of the district court

5 in Pec and Investigating Judge Gojkovic, our institute received the

6 request to exhume and autopsy a large number of bodies that were found and

7 seen near the canal in Radonjic Lake.

8 Q. Is that the regular procedure for you to be engaged?

9 A. Yes, that's the only procedure according to which I was engaged,

10 that is, on the orders of the court.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Where is that in the report or in the statement?

14 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we are using the witness statement from 5

15 June 2001, and that's 6D96.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: It may be that it's in the statement of the next

17 witness, but it's not in the statement we have for this witness, I don't

18 think anyway, unless you can identify the paragraph. In any event, carry

19 on. I just wanted to see where it was referred to.

20 MR. LUKIC: I'd like to help you and I'll ask the registrar to put

21 on the screen --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I don't need to see it, Mr. Lukic. It was just

23 in case I was missing something in the report in front of me. But I

24 don't, in fact, think I am, so please carry on.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. [Interpretation] On 11 September 1998, a MUP jeep took you to

2 Glodjane.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Where did you set out from, Belgrade or some location in Kosovo?

5 A. I think we departed from Belgrade, from Belgrade.

6 Q. Thank you. From your experience, would you be able to tell us, is

7 it correct that the investigating judge, in his order, clearly defines

8 obligations of all authorities in the course of exhumations and post

9 mortems specifically, it is clearly stated which authority carries the

10 team for conducting post mortems, who secures the locations, who provides

11 conditions for work, et cetera?

12 A. In the order of the court it is most frequently stated that a team

13 of experts from certain institutions is thereby established and there is

14 an agreement with members of the team. Their assignments are specified.

15 The order states usually that the investigating judge would be present and

16 that he would organise the location in such a way that all persons present

17 there would be under judicial jurisdiction. And it is stated who would

18 assist in technical, logistical terms, who would organise transport, et

19 cetera.

20 Q. Do you agree that the MUP does most of the supporting work, such

21 as creating photo documentation, transportation of remains, transportation

22 of forensic experts and judges, including provision of packed lunches?

23 A. Yes, that's the way it happened in Batajnica. I have to say that,

24 as a member of this expert team, I was responsible for the medical expert

25 work, but MUP provided all the technical assistance. That's the way it

1 works where we come from. The police help us with photographing, securing

2 the location, et cetera. That's the rule and that's the way things are

3 done today.

4 Q. Would I be right in saying that the judge is the alpha and omega

5 of the procedure, both de jure and de facto?

6 A. Yes, he has the greatest responsibility.

7 Q. Thank you. You submitted your reports to him; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, I submitted daily reports, and after the completion of the

9 entire procedure, post mortems and exhumations, the investigating judge

10 receives the autopsy protocols and all the documents that are found

11 eventually. The autopsy protocol is signed by all the members of the

12 expert team. And the objects found are inventoried and placed in the

13 safe-keeping of the court.

14 Q. Thank you. It's just that the record is not quite exact. We were

15 talking about the investigating judge and the record states only "judge."

16 A. Yes, it's the investigating judge.

17 Q. We have been told by interpreters that we are going too fast and

18 that's why I'm going to try to make a brief pause after your answer, which

19 will not mean that I am not happy with your answer or that I did not

20 understand it.

21 You addressed the investigating judge also if you need any

22 assistance in terms of technical means or personnel.

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Thank you. I would like to take you back to the moment when you

25 were brought to Glodjane. You were shown a house there that had been used

1 as headquarters of the KLA. Did you personally satisfy yourself, and on

2 the basis of what indications, that it was, indeed, a house previously

3 used by the KLA?

4 You say in your statement - and that's paragraph 6 on page 4 of

5 the English version and paragraph 4, page 4 of the B/C/S version - that it

6 was obvious to you from the red and black colouring on certain parts of

7 the building and the KLA sign that you saw on the flag mast.

8 A. Yes, those were the clues indicating precisely that. But as to a

9 confirmation that it, indeed, housed some sort of headquarters, I received

10 it from an official of the German embassy who was in Pristina at the time

11 and who visited us in Djakovica, where we were performing the expertise on

12 the victims, who told us that he had been locked up there for a while

13 until his identity was established. But I really cannot tell you the name

14 of that diplomat.

15 MR. STAMP: I rise just to ask if this is -- the reference to the

16 statement, is this a reference to 6D99, the statement dated the 10th of

17 April, 2006?

18 MR. LUKIC: The reference is to 6D96, although in the system it

19 might be 6D97 by mistake. Not the photos, but the other 97.

20 MR. STAMP: Very well. Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: Hopefully it will be corrected.

22 I would kindly ask now to have 6D97, photos, on the screen,

23 please.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Dunjic, we should shortly see on the

25 screen photographs that we procured from a book, and they should relate to

1 the time when you were in that location. Is that the canal that we see on

2 the screen?

3 A. Yes, that's the canal. Those two photographs were taken from the

4 direction of Radonjic Lake, and the place where the canal narrows down

5 faces Donji Radiste and Glodjane. That's the concrete part of the canal.

6 And the second photograph is something that I saw with my own eyes when I

7 was on the location. We see two bodies next to the right-hand edge,

8 depending on where you're looking from, two bodies that were floating and

9 that were later found in the earth-covered part of the canal, because this

10 is the concrete part. Out of the concrete part there is a waterfall and

11 then follows an earthen part. There were heavy rainfalls at the time and

12 these two bodies and a larger one were found in April.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next photograph on this

15 set. In order not to waste time, I would, in fact, like us to see page 6,

16 please.

17 Q. Most of the bodies that you found on that occasion were, in fact,

18 at the end of this concrete part of the canal and at the beginning of the

19 earthen part.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And that's where you found most of the body parts.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In the vicinity of the site where the bodies were found is also a

24 barn for livestock, 500, 600 metres away.

25 A. I think it was a bit closer, around 300 metres.

1 Q. Does the bottom part show the inside of that structure?

2 A. When we got to that location, we toured it, and there is a set of

3 photographs made at the beginning. And as we were organising ourselves,

4 how and when we should begin to work, we went to this farm that used to

5 have these barns. In one of these we found pieces of wire, electrical

6 wiring, the thickness of a finger, coiled around those metal bars, and

7 they had a little noose in them. There were five or six such nooses.

8 When we finished examining the bodies found near the concrete part

9 of the canal and in the natural canal, and knowing that a large number of

10 persons had gone missing in that period in 1998, the appearance of the

11 nooses and everything that we saw on this farm indicated that some of the

12 victims had maybe been bound, tied, in this location. And later, that

13 turned out to be true. And remember, I'm speaking on our behalf, as

14 experts.

15 Two or three weeks later, near this farm but on the other side,

16 not on the side of the canal, another five or four bodies were found.

17 Q. Did you find on some bodies lengths of wire around the neck?

18 A. Next to some bodies that we found in the concrete canal, we did

19 find lengths of this kind of wire, but we also found a large length of

20 barbed wire that was around --

21 Q. Just a second.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the usher to show

23 us the next photograph.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is it, this is the wire

25 I'm talking about.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. What kind of wire is it?

3 A. That's barbed wire used for fencing, with a sliding noose on one

4 end - we see that on the left-hand side - and strands of long black hair,

5 the same hair that was found on one of the female victims.

6 Q. Thank you. Is it the case that during the exhumation there was

7 shooting in the vicinity?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you know who was shooting?

10 A. We didn't know who was shooting, but we were forced to work only

11 up to early afternoon in order to be able to return to Djakovica from that

12 location with security escorts.

13 Q. There were lots of civilians in Djakovica who were interested in

14 the exhumations and the results.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Some of them were from all of Kosovo and even from outside of

17 Kosovo.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Those people had come to find their relatives who had been

20 abducted before.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Among the civilians who had come to see their relatives, there

23 were Serbs and Albanians alike.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. It was not safe for civilians to stay longer in Djakovica after

1 1700 hours, so they were forced to return and come back the next day.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. There were many civilians who had come to identify members of

4 their families, but you found that among the discovered bodies there were

5 none of their relatives, in many cases.

6 A. Yes, that's true. We were unable to find persons that would even

7 remotely correspond to those we had examined in detail, photographed

8 together with clothes and anthropological findings.

9 Q. Can we conclude the number of the missing persons was much higher

10 than the number of bodies found?

11 A. Yes, certainly. From the number of relatives who came, we could

12 conclude that the number of missing persons was much, much higher than the

13 number of bodies we found near the canal.

14 Q. Thank you. Out of the 39 persons you found - and you indicated

15 that was the smallest number - you identified only 12. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Were there any rumours or things mentioned among the members or

18 relatives who had come there, saying that Albanians were afraid to

19 possibly identify some of their relatives, fearing the reprisals of the

20 KLA?

21 A. Well, I'm now talking about a physician and an expert who worked

22 on this. If we thought that a given person recognised clothing of, say,

23 his brother, that person couldn't confirm that, indeed, that was his

24 brother. That's why some other family members came who would also deny

25 that that was the person, but our impression was that they, indeed,

1 recognised certain items of clothing.

2 Q. Thank you. What was the atmosphere, the feeling among the people

3 who waited there to recognise some of the bodies found?

4 A. There were different emotions. And when I say that, I mean that

5 those people were greatly depressed, some of them afraid that they were

6 going to be the ones to find bodies of their relatives. And some, in

7 addition to all the desperation that was on their backs, still managed to

8 be even slightly glad to be able to recognise some of the missing persons

9 of their family.

10 Q. You wanted to carry out the autopsies on the site, but you

11 concluded that that was far too dangerous and you did that in Djakovica.

12 A. Yes. Our initial intent was to do that on site, but since we

13 could hear sporadic firing in our environs, coming from an unknown

14 direction, we couldn't carry out the entire autopsy procedure there.

15 Therefore, we decided to move to Djakovica, where we established a

16 temporary centre to carry out autopsies. We noted that in our report and

17 we informed the judge; I believe he was even present at the particular

18 moment when we went down into this natural canyon from which we extracted

19 the bodies. A shell flew over our heads.

20 Q. Thank you. In that area, for some 15 to 20 days prior to your

21 arrival, was there any KLA there? Did they control the area?

22 A. I cannot confirm that; I can only convey to you what I was told.

23 We were the first officials to enter the area.

24 Q. Thank you. Among those killed, at least among those you

25 identified, there were both Serbs and Albanians, as well as a Roma. Is

1 that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The work of your team was occasionally monitored by the OSCE as

4 well as the representatives of the United States, Russia, the United

5 Kingdom, Greece, and Germany, including two US government representatives

6 and another representative of the UK government. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you know any of their names?

9 A. I cannot tell you any names off the top of my head, but I believe

10 that Judge Gojkovic received official notification of their presence

11 because they all had to go via the Investigative Judge Gojkovic and to ask

12 for permission to be present during the work conducted there.

13 Q. Thank you. These foreign governments and OSCE representatives,

14 were they told the number of the bodies found?

15 A. Yes, they were, and they came at the point when we had already

16 begun identification. Since we have this picture on the screen, I wanted

17 to use this jog my memory. I believe there was a state department

18 representative, and he took this photograph or another photograph in which

19 he asked me to hold the barbed wire in my hands.

20 Q. Thank you. At that moment, could you acquaint him with the

21 preliminary results as to the cause of death and the identity of the

22 victims?

23 A. In the most general sense, the number of victims, in our estimate,

24 and we could tell whether these were males or females, as well as the age

25 of those for whom we had data, and some of the injuries which could

1 indicate what the cause of death was. In most cases this was gun-fire and

2 in one case it was a blade, a blade injury.

3 Q. These were more general questions. I would like to speed things

4 up since we are limited in time. I will use a few examples and mention a

5 few corpses you found at the location. Do you have before you your

6 statement from 2001?

7 A. No.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the relevance of inquiring into the method

9 of killing, Mr. Lukic?

10 MR. LUKIC: We think that we might establish that all the victims

11 were tortured before they were killed.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: And the relevance of that in this indictment?

13 MR. LUKIC: The relevance of that is that the civilian population

14 knew about these tortures, especially the civilian population in the

15 surrounding area, and it might bring unwanted consequences later on when

16 this population was in the position to retaliate.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not so clear on the second part of what you

18 say.

19 MR. LUKIC: It was in 1998 and --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand, but it's the relevance to the

21 indictment that I'm anxious to establish. Let's assume you establish

22 torture. Where does that take us in relation to this indictment?

23 MR. LUKIC: This incident was widely exploited by media and

24 created certain ways of thinking about civilian population in that area,

25 and many civilians were missing at that time that later on were

1 established were killed or still missing. And we think civilian

2 population might act on its own without having been guided by that -- by

3 anyone.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: But presumably you're thinking of the Albanian

5 civilian population.

6 MR. LUKIC: No.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: You're not?

8 MR. LUKIC: No, I'm not, about the Serbian civilian population.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Because of KLA torture?

10 MR. LUKIC: That's right, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Carry on with your questions on that

12 line.

13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Dunjic, the usher handed you your

15 statement from 2001 given on the 5th of June and a few subsequent dates.

16 If you wish, you can refer to it, if you deem it necessary.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to start with page 8,

18 paragraph 8 in the B/C/S; in the English, page 10, paragraph 2.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: We need a number for this, Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's 6D96, which is, by mistake,

21 marked as 6D97. Does this suffice, Your Honour?

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. I'm just waiting for it to appear on the

23 screen, but you carry on with your question, please. The witness has his

24 copy.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 Q. Starting from this page onwards, Professor Dunjic, for the most

2 part, you analyse the bodies, injuries, and the subsequent findings of

3 autopsies. For example, R1, that particular body, you state there that

4 this was a woman who was between 20 and 30 years of age. I can go body by

5 body, but I don't think the Bench wishes to receive so many details. But

6 if you wish, we can try and sum up everything. Is it correct that among

7 the 39 killed there were ten women? That was my count, the count of the

8 female bodies found.

9 A. That is what we managed to establish with certainty as to the

10 gender; that was at least ten women.

11 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the injuries on these bodies were

12 broken arms in many cases? And can you tell us what that says? What does

13 it testify to?

14 A. I didn't make such an analysis, a summary analysis, so as to be

15 able to confirm that. But there were such injuries among the victims as

16 part of some other types of injuries. For example, there was a gun-shot

17 wound to the pelvis or to the skull. Once we would establish such an

18 injury, in addition to a broken arm or a broken rib, this would indicate

19 that that particular victim suffered another type of injury as well; that

20 there was a blow which was so intense that would result in such a

21 fracture, a blunt injury.

22 Q. In several cases there were gun-shot injuries to the pelvis. What

23 does that indicate?

24 A. Well, I would have to use a specific example so as to be able to

25 explain whether the shot came from the front, from the back, from the

1 side. That is important for a forensic expert, whether someone is being

2 shot at from the front or from the side. Also, the route or the canal can

3 also tell us whether the victim was standing or squatting, or in what

4 position the person was.

5 Q. If we assume that they were shot from up close and that they

6 sustained a pelvis injury, what sort of a death would that be? Would that

7 be a very difficult, long death, with a lot of suffering?

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Please don't answer that question. That is a

9 hypothetical question which it wouldn't be appropriate for someone who is

10 here as an expert witness to answer, and that's already been challenged.

11 We're dealing with facts here, and to some extent, as we've indicated, it

12 may be appropriate to ask the witness about conclusions but not on the

13 basis of a hypothetical question.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I withdraw the question.

15 Q. [Interpretation] I wanted to go to a part of your statement in

16 which your conclusions are specified. Is it correct that all the bodies

17 found were in civilian clothes?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Among those killed, there were children as well?

20 A. Yes, there were people who were younger than 15, if that's what

21 you mean.

22 Q. Yes, that's what I mean.

23 A. Yes, there were some.

24 Q. On some bodies there were traces of people being tied up.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And lengths of wire were found in the stable nearby.

2 A. Yes. I have also described that, and this led us to the

3 conclusion that there were some more people there.

4 Q. And from their relatives, you were told that their family members

5 had been abducted by the KLA; we have that in the statement. Did you hear

6 from some other people as well that their relatives had been abducted by

7 the KLA?

8 A. I cannot recall it precisely, but this was sort of a streak

9 through -- or among all the cases of the Albanians recognising their

10 relatives, the people who were brave enough to come there and to identify

11 their family members.

12 Q. At page 29 --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Paragraph 29.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. -- page 10 in the B/C/S, and page 35, paragraph 3 in the English,

16 Mr. Hajrushi's wife described to you how her husband had been abducted by

17 the KLA. She also said that he had been abducted together with Jusuf

18 Hoxha. Do you recall that?

19 A. Yes, I remember it now that you said it. This was the man that

20 was in the bus.

21 Q. This is in your statement. I just wanted to remind you.

22 A. Yes, thank you. Can you at this moment recall that almost all the

23 people who had identifiable injuries had multiple fractures antemortem or

24 fractures caused while they were still alive; therefore, you excluded the

25 possibility that the fractures occurred when they fell into the canal.

1 A. Can you please repeat your question.

2 Q. Since we're now dealing with your conclusions in the statement,

3 may we conclude that almost all the people - in any case a great majority

4 of the people found - had sustained multiple bone fractures which occurred

5 during their lifetime? And I mean different bones, of course.

6 A. Well, it seems that I need to put my expert knowledge to use

7 here. This means the following: The findings that were noted down in

8 detail --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: There may be a misunderstanding here.

10 Unfortunately, we don't have this report. It's not in the system

11 and we'll need to deal with this later. It doesn't appear either as 6D96

12 or 97, so I'm working in the dark. But is your question not based on

13 something that is actually stated in the conclusions of the report?

14 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I went through all the injuries --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

16 MR. LUKIC: -- and I found this.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but it's not actually stated in so many words

18 in the conclusions.

19 MR. LUKIC: No, no, Your Honour --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I see --

21 MR. LUKIC: -- I went through all the injuries, so I'm just asking

22 the professor if he can answer; if not, we have it in the statement but we

23 have to go case by case.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is that not something that can be done out in

25 the courtroom, in due course?

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I withdraw the question.

2 Q. [Interpretation] I have already said something to the Court when I

3 tried to explain why I am asking these questions about Radonjic Lake, but

4 since I cannot testify I have to ask you.

5 The information about the killings and the information about the

6 circumstances of these killings, was it at that time available to the

7 public at large?

8 A. You mean information about the sufferings or autopsy findings?

9 Q. About the suffering.

10 A. Yes. It was even in the newspapers. I was even getting

11 individual -- calls from individuals who asked me if I have any

12 information that their relative was found, or something like that.

13 Q. I would now like to move to your statement that you gave -- that

14 you began giving on the 9th of March, 2003 [as interpreted].

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the system, it's 6D99, just for

16 administrative purposes.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: A bit more than administrative purposes, Mr. Lukic.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Just one

19 correction: The record says "9th of March, 2003"; it's, in fact, 2006.

20 Q. Do you need the statement? Do you want to have it in front of

21 you?

22 A. I would appreciate it.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: It's on the screen.

24 MR. LUKIC: I think it's in English on the screen.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, it's in B/C/S.

1 MR. LUKIC: Oh, no, it's in B/C/S. But still, I think that we

2 would be moving swiftly if the witness has --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

4 MR. LUKIC: -- a hard copy. Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] This statement has numbered paragraphs; it will

6 be easy to go through it. So, in relation to paragraph 19, I would like

7 to ask you, when you are on a site, on location, you administer the

8 collection of evidence and you give orders to the criminal technicians of

9 the MUP.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Paragraph 20, the scene-of-crime officers of the MUP photograph

12 the bodies and the objects that you indicated to them.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. However, some of the evidence in Dusanovac, for example, MUP

15 officers found the evidence themselves, put it in bags, and gave it to

16 Investigating Judge Gojkovic.

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer of the

18 witness because the counsel speaks too fast. Sorry.

19 A. The village is Dasinovci. It should be an "a" instead of "u".

20 It's okay now.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Not a single body or body part was removed from the location

23 without your knowledge, not even after your arrival.

24 A. Right.

25 Q. At that moment you did not know the ethnic affiliation of the

1 victims.

2 A. No, we didn't.

3 Q. Can we conclude that members of the MUP did not, in any way,

4 obstruct your work; on the contrary, they contributed to it without

5 holding back, both according to your instructions and with the steps they

6 took on their own initiative?

7 A. That's absolutely correct, and that was all supported by the

8 investigating judge, Rade Gojkovic.

9 Q. The examinations you carried out on the farm were strictly limited

10 by time because of the great danger in that area.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You were also limited in terms of space and area because you were

13 only able to examine the farm and its immediate vicinity but not the whole

14 location.

15 A. Yes. We were warned from the start that we could not go further

16 afield because there might be mines or shooting. So we had heavy police

17 escort for security, but we did have to inspect the site as experts.

18 Q. You performed your work according to the rules of the profession,

19 regardless of whom the remains belonged to - Serbs, Albanians, or any

20 other ethnicity.

21 A. That's correct. But I have to say I'm a professional, a

22 physician, a doctor, and national affiliation has never had any influence

23 in my work.

24 Q. While the MUP was clearing the area behind the farm, they found

25 another five bodies; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What did you mean when you said the MUP was clearing the terrain?

3 A. I heard it from them, too, and to the best of my recollection,

4 that meant securing the site when Mr. Milutinovic was supposed to arrive

5 at the site, and he did after our work was completed. The site had to be

6 secured so that there should not be any danger or risk. That is why the

7 MUP combed this wide area. And in the course of this search, those bodies

8 were found, and we assumed those bodies existed, from what we saw at the

9 barn.

10 Q. MUP officers carried all the bodies found in that locality to the

11 garage of the Pastrik Hotel, on the orders of Mr. Kemal Cindric. Could

12 you please repeat the answer.

13 A. Yes, correct. I have to add, though, that he was a judge who was

14 given powers and authorisation from the superior judge, Rade Gojkovic, who

15 had previously conducted a case in the same location.

16 Q. What is the ethnicity of Mr. Kemal Cindric?

17 A. I don't know. I can only suppose that he is an Albanian.

18 Q. But he is not Serb, at any rate.

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Do you know that at that time it could happen that neither MUP nor

21 the judicial authorities were able to conduct an on-site investigation,

22 according to regular procedure, and sometimes they were unable to conduct

23 it at all due to danger, that is, attacks from the KLA?

24 A. Yes, I know that.

25 Q. Thank you. You also made personal notes from the interview with

1 Mrs. Zoja Seferaj regarding her missing husband and son. Do you remember

2 what she told you about her husband Misin and son Axhia and the

3 circumstances of their killing?

4 A. I would have to look it up.

5 Q. It's paragraph 94.

6 MR. STAMP: I hesitate to object, but this is asking about what

7 somebody told him about somebody who he performed the post mortem

8 examination on. Although we have to give some leeway during

9 cross-examination, and presumably the cross-examination is based on some

10 instructions, this is going way beyond anything that could be probative or

11 relevant to the issues in this case.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we don't have any other means to

14 check claims by this Mrs. Zoja Seferaj. As you know, we cannot go to

15 Kosovo; we cannot investigate. We are trying our best to extract any kind

16 of information we can gather, and in this case we are trying to get

17 something from this witness that he heard at that time from another

18 witness. Whether it is good enough for this Court or what kind of

19 probative value it has, it's up to the Court. But with your leave, I

20 would like to proceed with this question.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let me make it clear at the outset: I don't

22 accept that you cannot go to Kosovo at all. I don't accept that you --

23 there is no way you can carry out investigation. But that's a separate

24 matter from the issue you raise here.

25 The relevance must be the first question. What is this relevant

1 to?

2 MR. LUKIC: If this witness answers, you might see; I cannot

3 answer instead of him, but I think that he might give us the data who

4 killed or kidnapped these persons.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: And what's the relevance of that to the indictment?

6 MR. LUKIC: The relevance is that many of the Prosecutor's

7 witnesses claim that the OVK never kidnapped, never killed, was not

8 present, and we think that this statement of the witness is very crucial

9 for this case, showing us what the real nature of the KLA at that time.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, the persons named here aren't witnesses in

11 this case, are they?

12 MR. LUKIC: No, they are not.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Now, the answer to the question doesn't

14 appear in paragraph 94, I don't think, but you're hoping that the witness

15 will now remember something about it.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I don't know. Maybe the witness

17 knows; maybe he does not remember. I don't know.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we consider that this may well have

20 relevance, depending on the answer, and we do not consider the objection

21 that it's hearsay to be sound; therefore, we repel the objection.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Dunjic, regarding paragraph 94 from

24 your statement of the 9th of March, 2006, do you remember what you were

25 told by Mrs. Zoja Seferaj regarding the death of her husband and son?

1 A. I cannot remember precisely what was said then, in 1998, what

2 exactly she told me, but I know that, among other things, she said they

3 had gone missing because they were kidnapped by members of the KLA and

4 taken away. But I cannot clearly remember whether he was a civil servant

5 at the time, whether he was employed by the state administration of the

6 Republic of Serbia, and whether that was the reason or one of the reasons

7 why both of them were kidnapped. And later, of course, we had occasion to

8 identify him, unfortunately.

9 Q. Let me ask you about paragraph 97 now regarding Ilira Frrokaj.

10 What did you find out from her family? Who abducted her?

11 A. Ilira Frrokaj and Tusho Frrokaj, her husband, were both abducted

12 at that time by members of the KLA. The explanation was that they were

13 Catholic Albanians and they were not financially contributing to the KLA

14 movement.

15 Q. Let me ask you about Axhia Seferaj and his son Misin. What were

16 they by ethnicity?

17 A. Ethnic Albanians.

18 Q. Ilira Frrokaj and her husband?

19 A. Also Albanians.

20 Q. One of those killed was Seida Ndocaj, you mentioned in paragraph

21 38. What is his ethnicity?

22 A. Albanian.

23 Q. I would only like you to answer me one question regarding

24 paragraph 123 at the end of your statement. You were speaking about the

25 requirements put forward by Finnish pathologists when you required their

1 assistance with regard to the mass graves found in Glodjane. You

2 requested their forensic medical assistance. The authorities of the

3 Republic of Serbia agreed that the exhumation of bodies of ethnic

4 Albanians buried in Orahovac, Gornje Obrinje and Golubac be included in

5 this exhumation; correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did Finnish pathologists help you with the exhumations in

8 Glodjane, as agreed?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Thank you for answering my

11 questions. I have no further questions for you.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, it's not been entirely easy to follow

13 all of this as it's happening, but the reference to Glodjane, with which

14 you introduced this back at the beginning of your cross-examination, is

15 that a reference to a different investigation from that at Dusanovac.

16 MR. LUKIC: I cannot pronounce that other one as well. But we

17 can ask the witness, perhaps, Your Honour, it's the easiest.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the report we've been looking at, 6D99,

19 relates to Dasinovci --

20 MR. LUKIC: That refers to two villages but I think they have been

21 dealt with at one instance, at that time, in 1998.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you clarify that for us, Professor?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What we were talking about from 1998

24 was quite a unique case we processed. There, I mean to say that these

25 were victims from one location next to the canal that we marked with an

1 "R"; then, there were victims from the village of Dusanovac; and the

2 third location was marked "RE." This pertains to the victims which had

3 been found close to the farm. We included all of them in the report and

4 the expert findings, but they were marked differently so that we could

5 precisely say where the bodies were found. This was quite a unique case

6 done in the same period, in 1998.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: The reference, though, that Mr. Lukic has made to

8 exhumations in Glodjane, where the Finnish experts did not do as had been

9 agreed, is that something separate from what you've been dealing with in

10 relation to Dasinovci?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To clarify, since it is clear to me

12 what the attorney asked, all the cases encompassed in the three marks I

13 mentioned were termed "the Glodjane case," and that's when the Finnish

14 experts were invited to attend.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And therefore, the reference to Glodjane includes

16 the canal next to the lake.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Thank you.

19 Now, Mr. Lukic, 6D99 is obviously admitted, in accordance with our

20 normal practice, and 6D97 is, because you've again referred to photographs

21 in that.

22 MR. LUKIC: Photographs are correct, 6D97 --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but what's missing is 6D96.

24 MR. LUKIC: It's in the system also under the number 6D97.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I've asked for that to be checked and I'm

1 told it's not there. Now, if you're correct --

2 MR. LUKIC: There is a number --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's not waste time on it. If you're correct, you

4 don't need to do anything because 6D97's been admitted, whatever it

5 comprises; but if it's wrong, you'll need to make a filing clarifying the

6 position.

7 MR. LUKIC: Somehow there is a mistake, a technical mistake, but

8 both documents are in the system.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp -- oh, sorry, Mr. O'Sullivan.

10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No questions.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no

13 questions.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk.

15 MR. SEPENUK: No questions, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman.

17 MR. ACKERMAN: No questions, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

19 MR. BAKRAC: No questions, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 Re-examination by Mr. Stamp:

25 Q. You said that the Grahovo scene was visited by Serbian president

1 Milutinovic in 1998. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you say at that time what was his relationship or standing

4 with the MUP, with the officials of the MUP?

5 A. He was the president of the state. He came to view a scene where

6 there had been victims.

7 Q. Very well.

8 A. There is also a photograph that was published in the newspapers.

9 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.

10 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Professor, that completes your evidence.

13 Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You are now free to

14 leave.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I apologise.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. LUKIC: There is one administrative matter and I couldn't ask

20 this witness, but I have to ask the Prosecution, because in paragraph 4 of

21 his statement from June the 5th, 2001, he says that he handed the photo

22 album and 56 photographs marked as B and addendum B and addendum C, that

23 he gave to the Prosecutor's office, and we have never received those

24 photographs. So if our learned friends can clarify whether we are going

25 to receive this later on or ...

1 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a matter for you to deal with informally,

2 first of all, and involve the Trial Chamber only if there is no ready

3 solution to it.

4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 Mr. Stamp, who will be the next witness?

7 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

8 The next witness --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: And there are no complications about bringing him

10 in, I take it?

11 MR. STAMP: No.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll have the break now for half an hour.

13 We'll resume at five past 6.00, and we will sit until ten past 7.00, since

14 we started that bit later.

15 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Judge Nosworthy has been suffering from a pretty

18 heavy cold all day, and we suggested that it would be appropriate for us

19 to continue under 15 bis in her absence. We are satisfied that that is

20 the appropriate course, to give her a chance to recover. It may be that

21 we will follow the same course tomorrow, depending on the circumstances.

22 Bring in the witness now, please.

23 [The witness entered court]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Professor Aleksandric.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, and

1 good afternoon to everyone present.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

3 tell the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be placed

4 before you.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: We have, as you know, before us a copy of your

10 statement and we have also various documents to which you refer. Counsel

11 wish to ask you additional questions, and that's the course on which we

12 will now embark. The first counsel to ask questions of you will be, for

13 the Prosecutor, Mr. Stamp.

14 Mr. Stamp.

15 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 WITNESS: BRANIMIR ALEKSANDRIC

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Examination by Mr. Stamp:

19 Q. Good evening, Professor. Can you start by stating your name and

20 your present --

21 A. Good evening.

22 Q. Can you state your name and your present job position.

23 A. My name is Branimir Aleksandric; father's name, Vitomir. I am a

24 full professor at the Medical School of the University of Belgrade. I

25 teach forensic medicine. I currently hold the position of the Head of the

1 Forensic Medicine Institute, as of January 2004.

2 Q. On the 2nd of June, 2006, did you give a statement to an

3 investigator, an OTP investigator, in respect to your exhumation and post

4 mortem work done at Batajnica in 2001/2002?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 MR. STAMP: That statement, Your Honours, is P2412.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 MR. STAMP:

9 Q. Now, the statement records in detail, in some detail, the

10 procedures you adopted. And you also say that in paragraph 17 of your

11 statement that you made meticulous recordings of the details in the

12 various post mortem examination reports that have appeared as a result of

13 your examination.

14 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, these post mortem examination reports are

15 referred to at paragraph 16 of his statement, and they are P2413, which

16 relates to what is referred to as Batajnica 3 -- of grave-site Batajnica

17 3, and P2414 to 2418 which contains the reports in respect to the

18 grave-site known as Batajnica 5.

19 Q. In the course of your work at Batajnica, you also examined sites

20 known as Batajnica 4, Batajnica 6, and Batajnica 7. Did you find anything

21 at Batajnica 4, 6, and 7?

22 A. To say right away that there was also Batajnica 8. At Batajnica

23 3, this was a mass grave; Batajnica 5, another mass grave. And I believe

24 there was another one, although I can't recall its exact code. Some other

25 numbers, for example, Batajnica 4, was an inter-space between Batajnica 3,

1 the mass grave, and Batajnica 5, another mass grave.

2 When the anthropologists used a bulldozer removing thin layers of

3 soil, there were indications that something was there. That is why we

4 gave it a separate number, Batajnica 4, thinking that it would result in

5 yet another grave-site. So as soon as we would notice something, we would

6 give it a code. As it turned out, that particular spot was not a grave;

7 this was simply the area between numbers 3 and 5, but it remained as

8 Batajnica 4 and there is a separate record of that.

9 As for each of the spots from numbers 3 to 8, I signed a report

10 which was forwarded to the investigating judge.

11 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, the individual reports in respect of the

12 exhibits tendered through this witness are very complicated and detailed.

13 I don't know if the Court would want me to go through any of them.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: No. These will be admitted, Mr. Stamp.

15 MR. STAMP: Thank you. I have nothing further to ask.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Mr. O'Sullivan.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour, first it will be counsel for

19 General Lukic, and thereafter we'll follow the indictment.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

23 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor. My name is Dan Ivetic and I represent

24 Mr. Sreten Lukic in these proceedings. I'm going to have some questions

25 for you today.

1 First of all, Doctor, in your written statement that we have

2 here from 2006, from June of 2006, at paragraph 2 of the English version,

3 you mention that you were sent to Lake Radonjicko, in Kosovo, in September

4 of 1998. Am I correct that eventually it was determined that the victims

5 whose remains you were involved in examining and exhuming at that location

6 were found to be civilians who had been killed by the Kosovo Liberation

7 Army?

8 A. I visited Lake Radonjic for the examination of those victims. As

9 for who had killed them, it is not up to me, as a forensic expert, to

10 determine that but up to a court.

11 Q. I agree. Now, am I correct that there were -- that Dr. Dunjic

12 headed the team that was actually doing the autopsies and, in addition,

13 you were -- you actually headed the team that was out in the field that

14 actually located the bodies and the other artefacts that were uncovered at

15 that location? Is that correct?

16 A. I wouldn't say that anyone headed the team. It was teamwork. My

17 learned friend Mr. Dunjic was at the Pastrik Hotel, I believe, and he

18 would initiate autopsies there. For the first three, four, or five days -

19 I don't know how many because there was a period during which we couldn't

20 work because of the bad weather - in any case, I was on the site, trying

21 to locate bodies. I would put them in bags and transport them, together

22 with my escort, to the Pastrik Hotel in Djakovica.

23 Once done with that, after three or five days, I joined the

24 autopsies themselves, and then we worked on them all together up till the

25 end.

1 Q. Okay. Well, we've heard some testimony already relating to the

2 autopsies and the findings thereof. I'd like to ask -- focus for a moment

3 on the fieldwork for a second, and I'm going to ask you: As part of your

4 forensic investigation of the sites at or around Radonjic Lake in Kosovo,

5 did your team prepare any written findings or summary?

6 A. Concerning each separate autopsy, there was an autopsy finding.

7 Later on, a record would be made as well for identification. If I recall

8 correctly, out of the 39 or 40 bodies in situ, by using the old standard

9 methods, we identified 12 people. All the records were handed over to the

10 then-investigating judge who was in charge of the case.

11 Q. I understand that, sir. I was actually asking about the

12 examination of the situs, the location where the bodies were found. Am I

13 correct that your team also prepared a record, or zapisnik, of what was

14 uncovered at the field location?

15 A. That is correct. I apologise, I seem to not have understood the

16 question well. I was at out in the field for those three or five days and

17 I kept record of what was found when and what code it was given, be it a

18 body or a part of a body or an object. I took notes by hand, since there

19 was nothing that I could type with. But every evening, upon my return to

20 Djakovica, I went to the police station and they put a computer at my

21 disposal; I wrote notes and protocols for the entire day, so every evening

22 for that particular day. And I put them all together for all of the days,

23 and that resulted in one single document.

24 Q. Okay.

25 MR. IVETIC: If I can ask for Exhibit 6D100 to be put on e-court,

1 and I also have -- I have the Serbian language original in hard format, if

2 that would be easier, since it does comprise about four, five, six pages

3 for the witness to authenticate the document.

4 Q. Doctor, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 6D100 for

5 identification purposes, and I'm going to ask you to take a few moments to

6 review the Serbian hard copy and then I'm going to ask you if you

7 recognise this document.

8 A. I recognise my handwriting.

9 Q. Okay. And sir, is this --

10 A. Since this is my signature, this is authentic, everything stated

11 in the document.

12 Q. Okay. And the first question I want to ask you to answer, sir,

13 is: Does this document appear to be the record that you compiled as part

14 of your investigation into the site at Radonjic Lake where the remains of

15 the bodies that you talked about earlier were discovered?

16 A. That is correct. Here, you can read exactly what I stated - when

17 we went out, at what time, what we found that day; and then on the next

18 page you have the continuation of the record for the next day. Therefore,

19 this is a record of the successive findings in the canal itself as well as

20 in its environs.

21 Q. Thank you, Doctor. If you could just offer some assistance for us

22 as well with respect to this record. Do you recall, was it prepared at or

23 around the time contemporaneous with the ongoing investigation, that is to

24 say, in 1998?

25 A. Yes. As I've said, I was in the field every day, and in the

1 evening, I would add to the existing record.

2 Q. And just for clarification purposes, the signatures on each of the

3 pages you'll -- there are two signatures by you on the Serbian version,

4 and there is a date in 2006. Am I correct that you handed this document

5 over to the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal, and that is why

6 there is the date 2006; that, in fact, you authenticated the document the

7 second time when you were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor.

8 Just so there's no confusion as to the dates.

9 A. First of all, I cannot recall the date, but I believe this

10 tallies. On the left side, you can see the signature of the investigating

11 judge who received this document. So this document was delivered to him

12 on that day with my signature. And the date from 2006, the other date, is

13 probably the date when I signed it as my document, when I handed it over

14 to the investigators.

15 Q. Thank you. And was it your normal operating practice and

16 procedure to prepare such reports in the ordinary and regular course of

17 conducting forensic investigations in the field?

18 A. Personally, I have no other practice. I never draft things based

19 on my memory or sketches alone, precisely so that I wouldn't forget

20 something, mix things up, or make a mistake. I write everything down

21 successively, and then I re-type that every evening. That principle was

22 used at Batajnica as well.

23 Q. Okay. Well, thank you, Doctor. We've heard some testimony

24 already from one of your colleagues relative to some of the material

25 that's set forth in this record.

1 MR. IVETIC: So, at this time, Your Honour, I would ask for 6D100

2 to be submitted into evidence from the bar table in its entirety rather

3 than going through viva voce with this witness the matters contained

4 therein. It should provide some additional information and clarification

5 for Your Honours as to what was found at the site in Radonjic, and then

6 I'll only highlight certain parts of that and then move on.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Any problem with that, Mr. Stamp?

8 MR. STAMP: I would still maintain the same objection with respect

9 to relevance, but it has been overruled so I have no problem with that.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there was -- if you're referring to the

11 objection that you stated to the reference to paragraph 94, I think, of

12 the previous witness's statement, then that was to the hearsay nature of

13 the evidence. Is that the objection you're maintaining?

14 MR. STAMP: Yes, it was a combined -- it was both the hearsay

15 nature and the thin relationship between that evidence and the issues in

16 this case.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Thank you. The same decision will be

18 made. We'll repel that objection and we'll give it what weight we decide

19 is appropriate in due course.

20 Mr. Ivetic.

21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.

22 Q. Now, Doctor, I would like to just highlight a few more issues from

23 your examination at Radonjic Lake before moving on. Now, first of all, in

24 this written record that you have just identified, a note at page 6 of the

25 English version - that would be page 6 of the English in e-court - a note

1 explains that when the last body was found and while your entire team was

2 in the canyon, a shell was fired at your team and struck one of the walls

3 of the canyon.

4 Could you give us some more details about this as to whether --

5 during the course of the investigation in the field, whether this was the

6 only incident where there was threat from fire, from fire-arms, in the

7 area of the investigative team's work.

8 A. It is correct. Perhaps when we were at some 30 metres down, deep

9 in the canal, because that's how high the walls were, my colleague

10 Mr. Draganjic Minica [phoen], and the assistant who was there, as well as

11 the police divers, while searching the canal and its environs to find

12 bodies or parts of bodies, something flew over our heads. I didn't know

13 what it was at the time. My colleague and myself were left standing,

14 whereas all the policemen lay down to the ground. It didn't exactly hit

15 the wall of the canyon, but it flew over and landed on the other bank,

16 although quite close. Then the police told us that what exploded was a

17 mortar shell. They could probably recognise it by the sound. "They took

18 their professional stand," and it was only the two of us who were still on

19 our feet.

20 There was another incident, perhaps the next day, as we were

21 coming out of the canyon. Since we were going through some thick bushes,

22 we were on all fours, and Draganjic Minica came across something which

23 seemed weird in the soil. He naively asked a policeman what it was, and

24 the policeman was astounded. He said, "Don't move." And there were three

25 or four anti-personnel mines there covered with some dirt. When they dug

1 them out, they were in some metal or tin boxes, maybe Coca-Cola boxes or

2 something similar; maybe they were cans.

3 After that there was always a policeman ahead of us, and we

4 followed in a straight line back to the base camp, or rather, to the truck

5 where we put the bodies and the finds of the day so as to return them to

6 Djakovica.

7 Those were the only two incidents.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. And now with respect to the work that

9 was conducted at the site, am I correct that, during the course of any --

10 and not only of that forensic exhumation, but is it also the standard

11 operating practice at the time, and currently, for the investigative judge

12 to be the person in charge of the same and with absolute authority over

13 all the personnel participating in the investigation, that is to say, the

14 person with the most responsibility?

15 A. Certainly. In principle, in our country, the investigating judge

16 leads the entire proceedings. We, as forensic experts, are only a part of

17 that procedure.

18 Q. Okay. And in that sense, am I correct that the exhumations at

19 Batajnica followed this same model?

20 A. Certainly.

21 Q. Okay. And now, based on your knowledge and experience, am I

22 correct that the police, once the investigative judge has taken over the

23 investigation and ordered any type of on-site examination or exhumation,

24 that the police are then tasked with providing security for the transport

25 of the team, security of the location and personnel at the site, and the

1 crime technicians, who are then directed by the forensic personnel to

2 record everything that is being undertaken?

3 A. I think you misstated it a bit. I don't know what that relates

4 to, my part of the job in Djakovica or Radonjic Lake or in Belgrade, at

5 the Batajnica location. Because if we are talking about the Radonjic

6 Lake, we slept in Pastrik Hotel, in Djakovica, and below, in the

7 underground garage, we conducted post mortems. And, of course, we

8 couldn't move around on our own there. The police would take us to the

9 location and take us back. And certainly, at that time, when there was a

10 lot of shooting, it was an armed escort. And that's also the reason why

11 we finished our work before dusk - you can see it in the papers - around

12 16, 1700 hours.

13 As for Batajnica, we had police logistical support, if I can put

14 it that way, inasmuch as the very compound of Batajnica we were assigned

15 one member of the anti-terrorist unit who helped us bring food, wash

16 dishes. It sounds a bit funny now, but the same man drove a tractor to

17 carry the bodies to the tunnel once we have done our analysis, and the

18 same man helped us if we needed new pipes or something, a spare part from

19 the fridge.

20 We had an understanding with the investigating judge that we would

21 go to the Batajnica location every day from our homes, in our own cars,

22 and the court would cover the expenses of that transportation.

23 Q. Okay, sir, we'll get to the Batajnica exhumation in just a

24 second. I'd like to finish up, for the sake of clarity and continuity,

25 with the exhumations performed at Radonjic Lake first, and then I'll move

1 on to Batajnica and we'll complete all the matters that need to be

2 discussed with respect to Batajnica.

3 Now, sir, with respect to the work that was performed at Lake

4 Radonjic, did the forensic data and evidence visible at the scenes where

5 the bodies were located indicate that the victims had, in fact, died at

6 those locations?

7 A. You see, when you have a decomposing, rotting body, it's difficult

8 to establish even a cause of death, let alone whether the persons found

9 their death in the same location. Everybody knows of the refrigerator

10 truck case in the Danube that came first and that the bodies from the

11 refrigerator truck were later buried into the ground. And the forensic

12 experts performed post mortems on buried bodies. How do you think a

13 forensic can tell the cause of death in totally decomposed bodies taken

14 out from the ground? Those people in the truck could have died of

15 suffocation because the truck was closed; they could have been alive when

16 they sank --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, the question doesn't relate to the

18 refrigerated truck; it relates to the lake at Radonjic. If the answer is

19 no, just give us that answer, please, rather than a detailed explanation.

20 Because if counsel does want more information, he will ask for more.

21 Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I understand. I thought

23 I would just give you an introductory explanation for a specific answer;

24 namely, it is difficult to say whether all the bodies we found at Radonjic

25 Lake found their death there or elsewhere and then were transported and

1 thrown into the canal. It is also questionable into which part of the

2 canal they were thrown because the water had carried them. When we came

3 there, we saw some bodies in one spot in the canal. And on the third day,

4 I think, the skies seemed to open and it started pouring, and when that

5 rainfall stopped, we found those same bodies hundreds of metres further

6 down. It is logical to assume that, from the moment when they got there

7 until the moment our team arrived, there had been other instances of

8 calamitous weather. That canal is not a little puddle; it was a great

9 mass of water, especially after rainfalls.

10 MR. IVETIC:

11 Q. Okay, sir, just one more follow-up on that and then I will move

12 on. Did you find any forensic artefacts or evidence that any of the --

13 that indicated that any of the bodies had, in fact, been lined up against

14 the canal wall and shot, in the Radonjic Lake instant?

15 A. I think in this record that I kept on the spot - we are still

16 talking about Radonjic Lake, if I understood you well - at least in the

17 Serbian version, on page 3, in paragraph 1, the following description is

18 found:

19 "On the concrete wall that delimited the canal, on the external

20 side where there is soil, we found a lot of damage consistent with

21 projectiles."

22 And also below, a mass of gravel that was slightly different from

23 the other gravel; namely, it was not overgrown, not even a little, by

24 grass. There were no patches of fresh grass, so we suspected there could

25 be something below that gravel. We found bodies, and they were marked on

1 the spot. You see that on the record. F14, 15, and maybe some other

2 identifications. I don't know if we found two or three or how many.

3 So on the basis of the entire picture on the spot, on the basis of

4 those circumstances and the post mortems performed later, we could

5 conclude that those two or three persons died there from gun-fire and that

6 they were later buried and covered with gravel. Relevant photo

7 documentation was also provided to the investigating judge, and there is

8 underlying evidence.

9 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, in regards to the autopsies that were

10 performed, we've heard testimony that there was a large media reporting of

11 the event. Do you recall if you, yourself, witnessed any large amounts of

12 civilian persons who came to the Hotel Pastrik to try and find out what

13 was going on and whether any of the bodies that had been uncovered were

14 friends or relatives?

15 A. You see, this is the procedure: When we finished the whole

16 procedure, from finding the bodies and finishing the first post mortems --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Sir, it would be helpful if you'd go directly to

18 the question and answer it rather than tell us the procedure. It's a very

19 specific question. Were you involved in meeting people who came looking

20 for the bodies of their friends or relatives? The answer must be yes or

21 no, I think.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, if that's the answer you're

23 looking for.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: And now counsel can ask you for more information if

25 he wants.

1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Now, would it be fair to say that the general atmosphere within

3 Djakovica at that time, particularly the local population that was around

4 the Hotel Pastrik, showed a great concern for what had been discovered and

5 the victims and the potential threat posed by whomever had killed the

6 persons at that location?

7 A. To tell you the truth, I had no idea what the atmosphere was

8 outside the hotel for the simple reason that we had our hands full with

9 our job on post mortems. However, when we completed post mortems and

10 started identifications, we came into contact with those unfortunate

11 families, and with their assistance, we had to try to identify the

12 bodies. And that was the first time we came into contact with those

13 people who had missing family members.

14 Q. Okay. I'd like to now move on to ask you some questions with

15 respect to the Batajnica exhumation investigation --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Ivetic, we've tried to set some guidance

17 for the use of time, and I'm very reluctant to get involved in this sort

18 of discussion, but this cross-examination doesn't seem to be observing

19 these --

20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, this witness --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: -- these guidelines.

22 MR. IVETIC: If I may answer that, Your Honour. The Prosecution

23 provided us with an estimation of time for this witness. They were going

24 to lead him an hour and a half. This morning, when I talked with the lead

25 counsel, Mr. Hannis, I was advised that they were revising that to 45

1 minutes. I have cut down my cross-examination to be 35 to 40 minutes, but

2 obviously they went five minutes with their direct. I can tell you

3 exactly now that I have five more questions.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I wasn't aware of that. It would be helpful to the

5 Bench to know what's actually happening when the guidelines are clearly

6 not being followed. So I hope that practice will be followed in the

7 future.

8 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. I will definitely follow that in the

9 future.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not confined to the Defence conduct either;

11 it's happening on both sides.

12 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Now, sir, as you've heard we have time constraints, I would like

14 to just ask you briefly, as I indicated, five questions relating to

15 Batajnica.

16 I believe you had already started talking about this previously

17 with respect to the bodies that were from the refrigerated lorry. I'd

18 like to ask you: Generally speaking, about all of the bodies that were

19 exhumed, am I correct that, due to the advanced stage of putrefaction and

20 decomposition of the remains, the precise cause of death could not be

21 ascertained to a requisite degree of medical certainty for the bulk of the

22 remains, that is to say, for most, if not all, of the remains that were

23 exhumed?

24 A. First of all, all of the bodies were in an advanced state of

25 putrefaction, absolutely all of them; some were even pure skeletons. In

1 principle, when you perform post mortems on such bodies, whether they were

2 exhumed or found in a state of decomposition, a simple autopsy of a

3 decomposed body cannot give you a definitive cause of death. That is a

4 job for further expertise which will use the post mortems, evidence from

5 the on-site investigation, clothing, objects found on the body, and other

6 factors, to provide an indication of the cause of death.

7 Q. Thank you. I think you've actually answered my next question as

8 well. Just let me ask you this, sir: In your statement you give the

9 opinion that the bodies that had been exhumed, at least from Batajnica 3,

10 I believe it was, that you had examined, showed evidence of having been

11 exposed to fire, And you conclude that the -- that the bodies had -- that

12 there had been an attempt to burn the bodies at that location. Could you

13 please expound upon that and give us the bases for your conclusion that

14 there had been an attempt to burn the bodies at the Batajnica 3 location.

15 A. First of all, I think it was also the case in the second mass

16 grave. I don't know the exact number, but everything is in our records.

17 And as for the record and why we came to the conclusion that the bodies

18 were burnt, it's simply that the tires below and on top of the bodies were

19 burned and post mortems also established traces of fire primarily on the

20 bones but also on the soft tissues and, of course, on the clothing

21 covering the bodies, and even in the personal documents found in the

22 clothing, below the clothing, tucked under the belt, et cetera.

23 So we had clear evidence of the bodies' exposure to fire. And

24 since the bodies themselves were found next to tires which undoubtedly

25 were incinerated, there was no other conclusion but that the bodies were

1 burned.

2 Q. And you indicated that there was the burnt tires that were there.

3 Were there other indications to show that, in fact, the burning had been

4 attempted physically there at the Batajnica -- were any of the soil -- any

5 evidence in the soil or other artefacts that indicated that the attempts

6 to burn the bodies had been conducted physically at that location rather

7 than anyplace else?

8 A. As far as I remember, we also found charred or burned planks. But

9 I repeat once again: It's all in our records. I cannot remember any

10 other details. I remember only tires and planks and, of course, the

11 burned bodies and clothing.

12 Q. Thank you, Dr. Aleksandric. I apologise for rushing you through

13 this, but we did have time constraints. I thank you for your assistance

14 today.

15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm completed.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

17 Mr. O'Sullivan.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No questions.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No questions. Thank you.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk.

22 MR. SEPENUK: No questions, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.

24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. No

25 questions.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

2 MR. BAKRAC: No questions, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

4 MR. STAMP: No re-examination, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

6 Well, Professor, that does complete your evidence. As I explained

7 at the beginning, we have your written statement, and, as counsel

8 indicated at the outset, it has with it a large number of very carefully

9 prepared documents dealing in great detail with these events which are all

10 before the Trial Chamber for their consideration. We are grateful to you

11 for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence, and you are now free to

12 leave.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, and good

14 evening to everybody.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 JUDGE BONOMY: The next witness, Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: The next witness is P -- is K62. Your Honour --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: 72?

20 MR. STAMP: 72. A few minutes ago I made inquiries as to his

21 availability and I was told that an estimation had been made and he had

22 been transported back to the hotel. Therefore, I told them that there was

23 no point in going back for him, if it was anticipated that we might finish

24 a few moments before 7.10. Indeed, there would have been no point in

25 going back to the hotel.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I agree with that; the mistake was not keeping

2 him here.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I understand the witness is there, Mr. Stamp,

5 so shall we bring him in?

6 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

7 I'm trying to contact my colleague to see if he could come down.

8 I'm wondering if it's really feasible at this time.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, yes, every minute counts, I'm afraid, in this

10 trial and we should get started.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Good evening, sir. You are known to us in the

13 court as K72, and that's the reference we will have to use for you

14 throughout your evidence. Would you please make the solemn declaration to

15 tell the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be placed

16 before you.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

18 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

20 The Court has before it a statement you gave, which we have read;

21 that was given in October 2005. Nevertheless, you're here to answer

22 further questions to supplement the information in the statement or

23 clarify things or possibly to be challenged about things that are in

24 there. I don't know exactly what questions you will be asked, but you

25 will be asked questions along these lines. Now, the first person to

1 examine you will be for the Prosecution, Mr. Hannis.

2 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Your Honour.

3 MR. HANNIS: Good evening, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Good evening, Mr. Hannis.

5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, this witness is K72. Yes, we have a

6 pseudonym sheet, which is being printed out at that moment, I hope. This

7 witness's evidence, Your Honour, pertains to paragraph 75(h) in the

8 indictment.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: And he's 92 ter, I take it?

10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, he is listed as live and 92 ter, I

11 believe on the witness notification from last week.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 WITNESS: WITNESS K72

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Examination by Mr. Hannis:

16 Q. Witness, first of all, I would like to begin by handing you a

17 document. If you can look at that and read it to yourself and please

18 advise us if that information is correct, as far as your personal details.

19 A. Yes, correct.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that is Exhibit P2392, I believe. We'd

22 tender that at this time. Thank you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis. Please continue.

24 [Prosecution counsel confer]

25 MR. HANNIS: May that be received under seal, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: That will be admitted under seal.

2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

3 Q. Sir, I would next like to show you Exhibit 2390. Do you recall

4 giving a statement to an investigator from the ICTY last year, on the 26th

5 of October? I'm sorry, did you hear my question?

6 A. Yes, yes, I heard.

7 Q. And do you recall having given a statement to an investigator from

8 the ICTY last year, on the 26th of October?

9 A. Yes. Yes, I recall.

10 MR. HANNIS: And if we could, I have a hard copy that I could hand

11 the witness.

12 Q. Before you came to court here this evening, did you have a chance

13 to review that written statement?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And in reviewing that you noted a couple of minor changes that you

16 indicated to us, we Prosecutors, who put it in a supplemental information

17 provided to the Defence the day after you were interviewed. Are you

18 otherwise satisfied that the information contained in that written

19 statement is true and accurate, to the best of your information and

20 belief?

21 A. Yes, yes, correct.

22 Q. And can you confirm to the Court now that the answers you gave at

23 that time are the same answers you would give now if you were asked those

24 same questions?

25 A. Yes, the same.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we'd like to tender 2390 at this time,

3 also under seal.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: That will be admitted under seal also subject to

7 the production, as soon as possible, of a redacted version.

8 MR. HANNIS: We will do so, Your Honour. Thank you.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you going to deal with the changes --

10 MR. HANNIS: I intended to do that as I went through his

11 statement.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, as long as you identify them as you come to

13 them, since it's helpful to have them clarified.

14 MR. HANNIS: I will, Your Honour. There are only a couple of

15 minor details.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 MR. HANNIS:

18 Q. Witness, in your statement at paragraph 10, you talk about how,

19 when the NATO bombing started, you began to work for the VJ as a civilian.

20 Can you tell the Court how you first came to be tasked to do work for the

21 army.

22 A. In a hotel in Djakovica, called Pastrik, an officer came up to me.

23 They addressed him as lieutenant-colonel, I don't know his name, and told

24 me that I should report to the barracks the next day in order to do

25 something for the army with some equipment. I did do that and that's how

1 it started.

2 Q. And at the time that happened you were working for a private

3 company you called Bokshi, and I understand you worked as an excavator

4 operator?

5 A. Yes, it was called Bokshi by the surname --

6 Q. Was it the entire company of Bokshi that was asked to help the

7 army or was it just you individually?

8 A. I don't know whether a request had been made to him, but I did

9 operate his machine. He brought the machine to the MUP quarters and

10 that's where I operated it.

11 Q. And were you paid for the work you did?

12 A. While I worked at the barracks on Cabrat hill for the army, I dug

13 roads, trenches for the digging in of combat equipment, embankments. And

14 they gave me per diem; I don't remember how much.

15 Q. How often were you paid? Did you get paid every day?

16 A. I think every fortnight.

17 Q. And when you were working for them, how did you get to and from

18 the job? Did you drive yourself or were you transported by someone else?

19 A. No. I was driven there and back home.

20 Q. In what kind of vehicle, and by whom?

21 A. I think it was some sort of jeep, olive-grey-green, by a military

22 person. Whether it was a soldier or an officer, I don't know.

23 Q. In paragraph 11 you --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Before moving to that.

25 MR. HANNIS: Yes.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Your question about how you were paid.

2 Who actually paid you when you were doing this work?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Somebody who held the treasury who

4 paid out money to everybody, including officers. I heard that everybody

5 had the same per diem, the soldiers and us. I think the same person paid

6 out the money.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 Mr. Hannis, you can find a suitable time whenever.

9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

10 Q. One last question on that. Did you have to sign anything when you

11 received your payment?

12 A. I did not sign anything.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. This would be a convenient

15 time.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

17 Well, K72, we have to conclude the proceedings for the day at this

18 stage, and we will resume your evidence tomorrow; that will be tomorrow

19 afternoon at 2.15. You need to be back here ready to resume evidence at

20 2.15 tomorrow.

21 Meanwhile - and this is very important - now that you are in the

22 position of giving your evidence, you must not discuss your evidence with

23 anyone at all, and that means either the evidence you've already given or

24 the evidence that you may yet give tomorrow. So tonight and until you

25 come back tomorrow you can discuss whatever you like with whomsoever you

1 like, except the evidence in this case; that is absolutely off-limits in

2 your discussions.

3 So we will see you again tomorrow at 2.15. The usher will now

4 show you the way from the courtroom.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And we adjourn now until 2.15 tomorrow.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.11 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of

9 October, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25